Saudi Arabia is “not an ally of the United States,” according to Bernie Sanders, the independent senator and former Democratic presidential hopeful.

Sanders broke with the bipartisan consensus on Capitol Hill in an exclusive interview with The Intercept. The United States has long considered Saudi Arabia to be a loyal friend, supporter, and partner in the so-called war on terror.

“I consider [Saudi Arabia] to be an undemocratic country that has supported terrorism around the world, it has funded terrorism. … They are not an ally of the United States.”

The Vermont senator accused the “incredibly anti-democratic” Saudis of “continuing to fund madrasas” and spreading “an extremely radical Wahhabi doctrine in many countries around the world.”

“They are fomenting a lot of hatred,” he added. In June, Sanders joined 46 other senators in voting to try and block the sale of precision-guided munitions to Saudi Arabia. A Saudi-led coalition backed by the U.S. has been bombing Iranian-backed Houthi fighters in Yemen since 2015 and is accused of killing thousands of Yemeni civilians.

Speaking to The Intercept, Sanders called for a “rethink, in terms of American foreign policy … vis-a-vis Iran and Saudi Arabia.” The senator suggested the United States should consider a pivot toward long-standing adversary Iran and away from traditional ally Saudi Arabia. The latter, he claimed, “has played a very bad role internationally, but we have sided with them time and time and time again, and yet Iran, which just held elections, Iran, whose young people really want to reach out to the West, we are … continuing to put them down.”

Sanders said he had “legitimate concerns … about Iran’s foreign policy” but wanted a more “even-handed” approach from the United States to the “Iran and Saudi conflict.”

In a wide-ranging interview ahead of his set-piece speech on foreign policy in Fulton, Missouri, on Thursday morning, the independent senator said the United States is “complicit” in Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories and said he would be willing to consider voting to cut U.S. aid to the Jewish state. He also offered tentative support for a “face-to-face” meeting between President Donald Trump and North Korea’s Kim Jong-un; described U.S. drone strikes against innocent civilians as one of the “root causes” of terrorism; and called for a re-examination of U.S. foreign policy “unilateralism.”

Asked if he agreed with ESPN’s Jemele Hill and The Atlantic’s Ta-Nehisi Coates, who have both called Trump a “white supremacist,” Sanders said he preferred to use the word “racist” to describe the president.

“I think Donald Trump has strong racist tendencies,” he said. “And I say that not just because of his absurd and horrific remarks on Charlottesville, but because … when you lead the effort to try to de-legitimize … the first African-American president in our history, I think that’s racist. When you argue about the Central Park 5, I think that’s racist — so I think it’s fair to say he has strong racist tendencies.”

So—be friends with Iran not Saudi? let’s put the ”enemy of my enemy is my friend” into prospective and read this (source: the CNN):
Cybersecurity firm FireEye has identified a new group of hackers, known as APT33, that it says has been working on behalf of the Iranian government since 2013. The group has “potential destructive capabilities,” FireEye warned.

“The campaigns that were laid out were not just aligned with the Iranian government but with the Iranian military,” said Stuart Davis, a director at FireEye subsidiary Mandiant.
Between the middle of 2016 and early 2017, APT33 targeted a U.S. organization in the aerospace sector and a Saudi Arabian company with aviation links, as well as a South Korean oil and chemicals firm, FireEye said.

I don’t know- this piece isn’t an opinion one so I won’t debate any facts. I am surely against Sanders’ stance there. I generally preferred him as a candidate despite the age. but his stance on Saudi isn’t a wise one.
Don’t you all think all these articles are deliberately stacked together now because it’s their national or independence day this week and it’s September ? I don’t get why these resurface without any hard proof of anything.

This is factually incorrect. That particular opinion of yours is a typical expression of ignorance. Bernie, I am disappointed. I get that we don’t agree with Saudi over so many matters- and the reasons are obvious. But to choose Iran over Saudi sounds worse.
You see, proof of what Iran has done in the region and world wide is there..it’s tangible and there for everyone to see. But Saudi? Yup I see why suspicions arise but there isn’t smoke in that gun of theirs.
I won’t get into the hijackers list- I know, we ALLL know how it was mostly Saudi born individuals who conveniently were all easily recognized and bagged together in a nice Saudi flag to be blamed for an utterly idiotic catastrophic mission.
A mission that only targeted civilians and brought the government nothing but pain for so many years along with an image they desperately try to shake up.
But the thing is- they have indeed proven themselves to be the top when it came to combating the same ideologies we blame them for. The amount o money alone they spend on it is mindblowing.
I find it hard to believe they are financing it with a few millions while paying billions to end it. Not defending, just stating facts- No Bernie, hugging Iran is just like having a tea party in north korea- at least Saudi is with us on the economy and anti- terrorism fronts.

Oh no…and here I was rooting for you Bernie¬ This is exactly the type of thinking that would get us Westerners in trouble with the wrong lot. and by that I mean Iran- We might not see eye to eye with Saudi about much..but when it comes to terrorism I’d say they take the lead.
If you just click your browser you’d see how much proof easy available on the millions -no, billions they’ve spent on combating terrorism. Are you telling me a country who has had a petrol-scare and some financial potential fails would spend that much on combating something they fund in secret? kind of makes no sense.
Not to mention this got them nothing but negativity, It is hard to believe it’s something they’d be running underground while so many are pointing fingers at them…nope, can’t take it. Now on the otherhand the proof of what Iran is doing is there in spades.

I absolutely admire what you have written Senator Sanders, and could not agree with you more.

Thank you so much for being so clear and so bold, and express the facts so fearlessly. I would have definitely voted for you, if the nation was so alert and not so misled s to cause your choosing to not stay in the race .

Both Saudi Arabia and Israel are constructs of the West. Neither can survive without the USA and its fawning allies. If you say Saudi Arabia is not the ally of the USA you must go one step further and say the US security services are not an ally of the USA. 30 million dandy middle-class idiots and their billionaire bosses do not a great military make. Maybe they could get their Filipinno maids, African slave-workers and Russian whores to protect them. Saudi Arabia has a quadruple security problem: 1. It has immense natural resources worth stealing that every Tom, Dick, Harry, Vlad, Cheng and Enrico want all day, every day. 2. It has immense financial wealth needing protecting somehow, somewhere, such as in Switzerland and America and Japan and England. 3. It has undefendable borders. 4. It has no other resources such as manpower, raw materials for industry, or even food and is totally reliant on the outside world to function.

So even assuming that it somehow could form its own policies and stamp its own feet and cause the mayhem suggested by others it could soon be nipped in the bud; so we must assume that any uppity behaviour comes – like Israel – with the blessing of the West. Yes, 1300 years ago the warriors of the Faith burst forth and did very well fora time, and yes there are 1 billion Muslims that consider the country holy, but that certainly does not mean they consider the House of Saud holy or at the very least worth getting shot at for. But the reality seems far simpler: an enormous asset is kept safe by the iron hand of an allied house whose vast wealth is used to fund all sorts of naughty behaviour in the Great Game.

And the Great Game that the USA plays needs scapegoats and enemies, real or fantastical. Allies and enemies, they are all the same thing really.

That’s what Trump should have said right in front of the UN! But perhaps many here don’t understand the petrodollar system, where in exchange for protecting Saudi Arabia from its nasty neighbors, they agree to sell oil only in US dollars and recycle the proceeds into US treasuries, allowing us to live far beyond our means. Learn about it folks, it’s crucial to explaining both to our foreign policy and economic system.

If only Main Stream Democratic Voters weren’t so gullible as to have believed the press and the DNC about Bernie, we’d have HIM as president today instead of Trump! … See what voting for the Lesser Evil gets you?

The United States has traditionally put economic priorities front and center in deciding whom to claim as an “ally” or a “partner in the war on terror.” This is particularly ironic in the cases of Israel and other Arab “allies.” With the possible exception of Jordan, the majority of these maintain repressive regimes in which torture, violent suppression of dissent, lack of free and fair elections, etc. qualify these as dictatorships … and certainly those with no credible pretensions to democracy.

But the United States is nothing if not practical, and while our admiration and commitment to unfettered capitalism is at least consistent … it should be a source of shame and regret. We support some of the worst regimes on the face of the planet. Saudi Arabia where torture, beheading, crucifixion & flogging are the norm, Egypt, where who the hell knows what’s going on behind closed prison doors, Israel, where the Israeli government has literally become the beast from which the Jewish people fled just decades ago, etc.

Face it … the United States is a whore to money. And we are on the path to Hell if we don’t wake up and take a U-turn back into something remotely resembling sanity. It may sound a little hyperbolic, but I honestly believe that the soul of the nation I still love .. is on the line. And our potential salvation lies with Dreamers, Black Lives Matter, the Millennials, and the rest of a messy, democratic, heterogeneous, exhilarating mosaic that is continuing to emerge in the United States when Trump woke the sleeping giant … Participatory Democracy.

Bernie is a pivotal figure in the evolution of this country. At some point we will acknowledge that he has played a role akin to other seminal figures like FDR and JFK and MLK. He articulated a “new possible” and opened the space for others to do so as well.

And history is rhyming up a storm at the moment … chaotic, dangerous & exhilarating. I wouldn’t have missed this time in history for the anything in the world. As long as the GOP refuses to be “other than who they are” – racist, misogynist, entitled, cruel & greedy – they are showing their erstwhile supporters what the face of evil looks like. And while the Alt Right may find that attractive, the rest of us are disgusted, saddened, humiliated, & appalled. And the GOP’s real agenda, their real motivations, and their real commitments … are becoming utterly transparent. They are whores to the money, and whores to the power. And there’s a reason why those town hall meetings began to morph into impromptu gatherings in their driveways when they refused to confront their constituents in a more traditional venue.

So … as Gandhi put it, “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, and then you win.” We’re well past ignore, moving past laugh, it’s beginning to appear that there may be rather too many of us to fight, and so … on to “winning.”

Thank you Bernie for showing us the “path to the possible.” We owe you a debt that can never be repaid. Live long and prosper.

And I do note you said, “…when Trump woke the sleeping giant” of participatory democracy.

YES, and let us all understand that had Hillary become president, the giant would STILL be sleeping! This is at least ONE great out come of his presidency, though it comes at terrible cost. … Now it’s up to us to make good use of that one great thing…

What a bunch of divisive hooey! A statement has to first contain a grain of truth to be characterized as “hyperbolic.”

1. The dreamers are merely illegal immigrants – no ones salvation relies on their ultimate status.

2. Millennials? Really? Forty per cent of Millennials polled by PEW favored government restriction of public speech that they deemed offensive to minority groups.

3. BlackLivesMatter is a Postmodern, socially regressive, neo-Marxist, and maladaptive collection collection of race-separatist, slogan chanting snowflakes. In an attempt to falsely claim a shared victim status for sins of the distant past, BLM members reflexively ascribe every personal shortcoming to institutional and/or systemic racism. Very recently, one of their founders was publicly proclaiming that neo-Nazi hate speech had no first amendment protections.

Hell, I am surprised that you didn’t include Antifa in this motley collection of aspiring victimhood. Merely citing the likes of FDR, JFK, and MLK does little in the way of articulating the ethical, moral, or political principles that made each of these figures uniquely special. And neither of the three groups you chose to mention remotely reflect the best of that which these individuals represented.

Dreamers are the very future of this multicultural nation of immigrants; dreamers are not illegal.

40% of millenials thinking one way indicates that the other 60% think the other way. nice try tho…

You don’t understand what BLM is. Or maybe you do, it’s just that you don’t know how to interpret it, because its a movement by people different than yourself. You’re intimidated by new things, especiallly if you don’t understand them. Overcompensating, you act macho and type all aggressive-styles on chat forums, slapping tired old labels on everyone hint you disagree with, believing that others perceive you as strong and of sound judgement, when really, you just come across as ill-informed and desperate.

FDR JFK & MLK captured the imaginations of millions that dreamt for a better brighter future for this nation. A better brighter future for all. I think those three groups capture this spirit beautifully.

Dreamers (def): The term has been used to define individuals in the U.S. who were brought to the country at an early age without documentation but have assimilated to U.S. culture and have been educated by U.S. school systems.

In other words, dreamers are undocumented, illegal aliens

Forty percent of a whole generation and BLM favor government restriction of public speech that they deemed offensive to minority groups and you want to ignore the implications of that deeply deleterious trend. Shame on you.

Karl: To address your three point screed / critique of Suzie Kidder’s comment on the Bernie Sanders article I will take them in the order they appear.

1.”The dreamers are merely illegal immigrants – no one’s salvation relies on their ultimate status”.–The so-called Dreamers are the otherwise (other than flawed immigration law) large percent of the Hispanic American citizens of this country who vote and who are watching this fascist deportation program unfold. The Hispanic Americans , both legal and illegal are here, not because they are somehow devious criminals, but because our ‘great nation’ first stole the land of the Mexicans in the West and Southwest and then with some legal flim-flam. not unlike that used on the Native Americans, turned them into non-citizens who were then tolerated ( wink, wink nudge, nudge) to pick the crops and do labor for wages and working conditions that they had no legal recourse to remedy. And yes, from an electoral standpoint our salvation may very well rely on their (Hispanics) votes.

2. ” Millennials? Really? Forty percent of Millennials polled by PEW favored government restriction of public speech that they deemed offensive to minority groups”.– On this one I will just go with a previous commenter in pointing out the flaw with your arithmetic. It is also noteworthy to point out that some similar percentage (60%) find socialism to be an intolerable concept.

3.” BlackLivesMatter is a Postmodern, socially regressive, neo-Marxist, and maladaptive collection of race-separatist, slogan chanting snowflakes. In an attempt to falsely claim a shared victim status for sins of the distant past, BLM members reflexively ascribe every personal shortcoming to institutional and/or systemic racism”.–Here your white privilege shines brightly! You could have saved your self a lot of euphemistic vituperation if you’d just said, ‘ isn’t it about time all of you n*****s got over slavery’. I am a 72 year old white man who was brought up in lilly white Minneapolis, so it has taken me a lot longer time to fully come to this realization. The wealth and power of this country and of Western Europe, in general, is based on racism with a strong helping hand from the (primarily) Catholic church. It is not especially difficult to generate wealth with virtually unlimited access to free labor and land. All it takes is greed and the excuse of ‘civilizing them’ i.e. bringing them to Christ, to essentially pillage the entire western hemisphere. It is not even institutional racism (though that is certainly a part of it). It is baked into the proverbial cake. You don’t even know it is there.
And as for the three monograms (FDR, JFK & MLK) of virtue you refer to, I would give very little credence to any but King. Roosevelt was a patrician who was ultimately saving capitalism from the excesses of a burgeoning fascism; Kennedy, largely the same. King was at least the leader of a true ‘movement’ that would not be denied. He wasn’t Gandhi, but the movement had that historical inevitability behind it.
It is now time to complete that slow revolution. Revolutions, historical forces, don’t come to fruition without leaders. I have to believe that Bernie Sanders is such a leader. It isn’t him per-se. He is just here now to put a fine point on the spear.

Just as a minor note : I’ve spent some time in Oman, which is a beautiful and safe country. Omanis are, I believe, genuinely committed to peace.

Oman has stayed out of the war in Yemen, kept good relations with both Saudia Arabia and Iran, and provided constructive mediation in regional conflicts such as the blockade of Qatar. Personally, I believe Sultan Qaboos is a strong contender for a Nobel Peace Prize.

(Note: Oman was part of the coalition in the first Gulf War, and I believe that Oman’s airbases were used by the US during the second Gulf War … so not complete neutrality.)

I just mention this to say that we cannot prove a correlation between democracy and peace. Western democracies can be belligerent. Arab monarchies can be peaceful.

Oman is also known for such as things as religious tolerance and promoting the position of women, and these seem to come as much from its own positive traditions as from Western influence.

I think Oman provides a very optimistic case study amongst political systems, not to be dismissed lightly, and should challenge us to consider that democracy is not necessarily a goal in itself and is not the only way to achieve a beautiful society with good values.

I think Oman provides a very optimistic case study amongst political systems, not to be dismissed lightly, and should challenge us to consider that democracy is not necessarily a goal in itself and is not the only way to achieve a beautiful society with good values.

Clearly you are unwilling or unable to defend your assertion that a lack of political self determination can result in a beautiful society with good values. The test of this claim is the treatment that dissenting elements receive from those in power. Tell me how good values translate into violent repression and torture of ones subjects.

Please tell me how good values translate into “the least protections for workers of most Western countries, the imprisonment of debtors, and the criminalization of homelessness and poverty, the invasion of the privacy of its citizens through surveillance programs, police brutality, police impunity, the incarceration of citizens for profit, the mistreatment of prisoners and juveniles in the prison system, having the longest prison sentences of any country, being the last Western country with a death penalty, the continued support for foreign dictators who commit abuses (including genocide), forced disappearances, extraordinary renditions, extrajudicial detentions, torture of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and black sites and extrajudicial targeted killings.”

Please tell me how good values translate into “has been internationally criticized for its violation of human rights, including the least protections for workers of most Western countries, the imprisonment of debtors, and the criminalization of homelessness and poverty, the invasion of the privacy of its citizens through surveillance programs, police brutality, police impunity, the incarceration of citizens for profit, the mistreatment of prisoners and juveniles in the prison system, having the longest prison sentences of any country, being the last Western country with a death penalty, the continued support for foreign dictators who commit abuses (including genocide, forced disappearances, extraordinary renditions, extrajudicial detentions, torture of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and black sites and extrajudicial targeted killings.”

Several commenters here are asking the impossible – while sitting comfortably in their seats – from Sanders. Just be grateful that someone like him is putting himself at risk by bringing in the public table important topics to everyone. Is he perfect, is he pure? It’s not relevant. What is relevant is that at his own personal risks he is talking about tabu subjects such as healthcare and wallstreet and CIA and Saudi etc. If nothing else, the general public will be better informed because of this. Try and support whatever crumbs of good he is doing – we don’t seem to have much else left.

no one cares who you trust or do not trust, people. nobody cares who you trust or don’t trust. It isn’t the least bit interesting because it has nothing to do with movement in the present. It’s an excuse and that’s what you use it for.

@ Mirza,
you wrote: “Now why in the world would you need to pass a law like that, if there were nothing to the lawsuits…..?”
The answer: Because Saudi Arabia made a bargain to be the scapegoat for those who really orchestrated 9/11.

US is protecting Saudi Arabia because it does not want it’s own puppet regime undermined. That does not mean that dumping on Saudi Arabia is somehow courageous or that Saudis have some sort of control over US. There is no shortage of politicians, pundits, movies, etc. that dumping on Saudi Arabia. Sanders is not the first politician to participate in this act of cowardice while congratulating himself on his courage.

As for Saudi connection to 9/11 attacks, look up “David Cross on the Terrorists” video on youtube.

Thank you! The GCC was once as taboo as Israel (Likud) but that changed in the last 5 years. You couldn’t get the media or any politician to admit they supported terrorism.

That said, the groups that fund, train and promote global terror are the GCC, Likud, NATO, Neocons and their sympathizers in the US. Joe Biden said this out loud and so did General Dempsey but they did not implicate the US.

Our country is beyond corrupt at this point. When people say 9/11 was an inside job, they’re only expressing a feeling about the corrupt nature of our foreign policy. All the hijackers were connected to our networks at some point in their lives, similar to the death squads we sponsored in South America. Muslims get blamed for this terror networks we’ve actively supported for over 50 years, definitely the last 30, starting with Reagan.

As someone said up-thread. I’m glad Hillary lost. She would have solidified this corrupt, Neocon foreign policy with little push back. Hopefully, we can reverse course while people are paying attention to the demagogue we put in charge.

I agree that the soul of this country is at stake. Multinationals and high net worth individuals only care about their tax cuts and hegemony. They have run the idea of America into the ground. Trump is their legacy but corporate Dems aren’t much different in terms of what they really care about. The country is nothing but an ATM to them.

The Saudis and the US found themselves on the same side … for example, supplying weapons to Afghanistan in the 80’s, the US was fighting the Cold War against the Russians, the Saudis were supporting the sovereignty of Islamic nations in the face of foreign occupation.

I think empire has always been an alignment of the interests of the elites.
When a billion dollar arms sale occurs, you can bet some senior people on both sides take a percentage. Who knows or cares if the weapons are really needed?

By running for office Bernie has expanded what people believe is possible to the point where Lindsey Graham is trying to sell his healthcare replacement plan by threatening Republicans with Single Payer, aka, BernieCare.

“It’s either this or we’re going to Obamacare and Bernie-Care,” Graham said, speaking to Breitbart. “Bernie-Care is full-blown single-payer socialism. It is his dream and that’s where Democrats are going.”

The Saudis have been exporting Salafist Wahhabism since the end of the Carter administration in conjunction with US foreign policy. They were stetting up Madrassas in Afghanistan with the aim of using Islamic ideology as a way of creating a very efficient guerilla army with a very clear anti-communist ideology. In the immediate wake of 911, PBS conducted an interview with Vali Nasr, an associate professor of political science at the University of San Diego, wherein he spoke at length about the Saudi effort to spread Salafist Wahhabism as a precursor to the militarization of Sunni Muslims throughout the mid-east and Asia.

Yet, it only took the progressive wing of the democratic party 16 years to openly denounce the Saudis; even then, it is only for the anti-democratic and repressive nature of the Saudi government in this instance. OMG… what a maverick. Fucking pathetic!

The inclusion of Saudi involvement in the attacks of 911 within the 911 commission’s report has been interpreted by some astute observers as a limited hangout. A limited hangout is defined as a preemptive cover story that is placed (in this case) in the official record in expectation that the deep state narrative surrounding the attacks might unravel in time. These cover stories are constructed to reveal some of the truth while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts in the case. If one reads the news reports surrounding the release of the 28 pages that detailed Saudi involvement, it is clear that they were intended to limit future inquiry into the true nature of Saudi/deep state involvement.

The Saudis have acted as the point of the spear when it comes to the neoliberal transformation of Sunni Muslim cultures. The intended aim of spreading Salafist Wahhabism was never intended to be limited to anti-communist efforts. Rather, the Saudis have been tasked to transform a myriad of disparate Sunni cultures in preparation for their eventual inclusion in the Gulf Cooperation Council; like the European Union, the GCC is one of several regional trade blocks that have emerged to homogenize and unify the business practices of its constituent states with the aim of facilitating the region’s seamless integration into the New World Economic Order. Unless Sanders speaks to this larger trend, Saudi Arabia’s true worth to America’s policy makers will be grossly underestimated. As a tactical measure however, such rhetoric has a certain degree of sobering potential int that it speaks to empowering Shia Islam at the expense of the Saudi led Sunnis. Using Sanders to up the pressure on the Saudi government is very much in keeping with a strategy of tension whereby a covert manipulation of public opinion is deemed advantageous to the creation and successful implementation of US foreign policy in the region; in short, Sanders is being used by the deep state to keep the Saudi led GCC on its intended course.

Why would they have used only Sanders to convey the message? His supporters already know what Saudi is all about. And most of what he says is never reported by MSM in any case. If what you suspect is true, then surely it would be far better to use an Obama, Clinton, Bush or Trump to convey the new messaging / pressure on SA.

Sanders enjoys a level of popularity equal to the president himself. He also convincingly represents a potential change in US foreign policy in that he may be the leading democratic candidate in the 2020 US Presidential election. At this very moment, Sanders is being used by the DNC – and the deep state interests they docilely serve – to convince his supporters that Russia hacked the 2016 elections at the expense of Hillary Clinton. Although this narrative is intended to make Trump tow the line, it is also pregnant with the potential of further eroding privacy rights as all online political speech will be made the willing subject of suspicion – like terror alerts, an endless string of anti-Russian cyber hacking alerts will have everyone seeing red for years to come. More importantly still, all political speech will be monitored and tracked back to its source under the aegis of the intelligence community.

This is one of the better arguments you’ve made on these threads, especially concerning privacy rights, which Dems are now pushing since the Facebook dust up.

While I do think Russia conducted, somewhat, of a low level psyop operation, I don’t think it was more sophisticated than what the news or partisan groups do when they spread their propaganda. Most of the media spread lies and disinformation, which is actually making it easy for foreign entities to manipulate the masses. Even now, Sinclair Broadcasting is trying to buy up local news stations in order to spread their propaganda. Most people still trust local news, so, it’s a ripe market to manipulate. At the end of the day, the problem is us.

The same goes for hacking. It’s our own government that weakens protections fir the purpose of spying on us. Corporations are lazy about spending money on good encryption. We’re literally sitting ducks to anyone who understands networks because of shortsighted, greedy leaders who have little interest in truly protecting the country.

“At this very moment, Sanders is being used by the DNC – and the deep state interests they docilely serve – to convince his supporters that Russia hacked the 2016 elections at the expense of Hillary Clinton.”

How is Sanders “being used” to push this narrative? They don’t need to him to spread it. I think the evidence presented thus far speaks for itself.

Sanders may have publicly said that he believes in Russia’s interference, he’s hardly pushing the narrative.

I do not believe that it does. So much of the case against Russia depends upon classified information received by the Obama administration from the intelligence community itself. For example, the 2015 hack of DNC servers supposedly provided proof that the attacks were state sponsored as DNC servers were allegedly observed to be initiating contact with unidentified counterparts within Russia. It took the DNC a fullsix months to respond to a series of “low-key warnings” from the FBI before it took effective countermeasures. During that period, it is alleged that Russian hackers used the servers to engage in a Phishing campaign that gave it access to a number of other servers via acquired passwords. Thousands of DNC emails were allegedly stolen by these Russian sponsored hacks and ultimately released via Wikileaks. Yet, an Aug 2017 independent assessment of the alleged DNC cyber attacks by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) found that the theft of the DNC e-mails was not a hack, but some kind of inside leak that did not involve Russia at all.

This was just one of many unsubstantiated claims made by the intelligence community that attempted to directly link Putin to alleged election activity.

By January of 2017 however, three “top intelligence agencies” had already provided the Obama administration with its assessment of alleged Russian hacking of election infrastructure – including the largely uncontested “Russian” hack of DNC servers. This report then provided the the Obama administration the necessary justification for classifying the entire elections process as “critical infrastructure” which, in practical terms, wrested traditional control of the election process from state and local election officials. Thus we have the entire election system now under the control of those who occupy the highest positions of power within the US.

Sanders deliberately limited the debates so that Clinton’s corruptions were not thoroughly questioned

Um…what? Sanders had no say in how many DNC-sponsored debates there would be! In fact, the DNC didn’t sponsor any less debates than usual. They actually sponsored 9 debates in 2016 (that’s more than 2008 and 2004). There were also 13 forums, sponsored by other organizations. So that’s 22 debates and forums, of which 14 were only for two candidates, Clinton and Sanders. Compare that with 2008: there were 17 debates and forums with between six and eight candidates; only six with two candidates, less than half the number in 2016http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

…and then he endorsed her AFTER the DNC blatantly screwed his supporters.

How did they do that? What did they do that prevented Bernie Sanders from winning the popular vote and/or more pledged delegates than Clinton? By talking bad about him in e-mails? E-mails are not votes.

Strongly agree. Whatever credibility Sanders once had, by backing Clinton he wrote his own epitaph. He is only willing to work within the existing failed system. Third party or nothing going forward if we’re going to fix this effed-up mess.

Sanders was being sportsman like by endorsing Clinton. Bernie made a promise, as did Hillary, to endorse and throw support to the winning candidate. There is historical precedent. Bernie kept his word, though it pained him greatly.

1. Sanders ran as a Democrat because that was the only way to get any amount of attention and votes necessary to even have a chance of winning the presidency and/or any party’s nomination for it.

The last independent candidate to run for President with any legitimate success was Ross Perot (1992 & 1996), who was already very rich and largely financed his own campaign. He won 0 electoral college votes. In fact, if he had run as a PARTY, his popular vote wins (18.9% and 8.4%) would have been more than enough to get public funding for a party in the next election. In other words, his election campaigns achieved NOTHING.

Neither Gary Johnson and Jill Stein could get 5% of the popular vote, and Clinton & Trump were the most hated candidates in recent years. That should tell you something about the near-futile effort and success that 3rd-party/independent candidates have. Ralph Nader couldn’t achieve it either.

2.

because Sanders helped lead people into this corporate owned dead end alley

If you honestly think Sanders would have won the Presidency in a 3-way race, with Clinton & Trump being backed by the two big parties, you are sadly mistaken. He couldn’t defeat Clinton in the primary.

Sanders was being PRAGMATIC and correctly deduced that Trump would be worse than Clinton. He said so at the first debate: “On her worst day, Clinton is better than any of the Republicans on their best day.”

3.

Now Sanders is back to his old pretense and his words are not any more trustworthy than either Trump’s or Clinton’s.

So you’re just going to attack the messenger, instead of the message? Got it.

you can’t go wrong with “praise them when they do good, criticize them when they do bad”.

The people being wet blankets just do that. For the whole time the Intercept has been running, they’ve posted variations on the same theme: it’s all hopeless. They don’t have a plan, they don’t have an alternative, they don’t have a movement, they don’t have constructive suggestions —- but none of that is as bad as their smug assertion that they somehow are above it all and somehow everyone who works for things is just a big “DUPE” who should know better than to do anything but post whiny shit on a website. Guess what dipshits, you can be a pessimist and still actually try to work with other people to improve things.

It’s interesting to note how so many Americans in 2017 continue to believe that a single politician can change the system in a positive way.

Such people have learned NOTHING from the eight years of the silver-tongued, fake progressive Obama.

You can see this tendency, this desperate wish to have a savior in the following for that charlatan Sanders.

Chris Hedges wrote in Empire of Illusion

“Those captive to images cast ballots based on how candidates make them feel. They vote for a slogan, a smile, perceived sincerity, and attractiveness, along with a carefully crafted personal narrative of the candidate. It is style and story, not content and fact, that inform mass politics. Politicians have learned that to get votes they must replicate the faux intimacy established between celebrities and the public. There has to be a sense, created through artful theatrical staging and scripting by political spin machines, that the politician is “one of us.” The politician, like the celebrity, has to give voters the impression that he or she, as Bill Clinton used to say, feels their pain. We have to be able to see ourselves in them. If this connection, invariably a product of extremely sophisticated artifice, is not established, no politician can get any traction in a celebrity culture.”

And the late, great activist, teacher, author Howard Zinn (1922–2010) reminded us that:

“The result of having our history dominated by presidents and generals, and other ‘important’ people, is to create a passive citizenry; not knowing its own powers, always waiting for some savior on high, God or the next president, to bring peace and justice.”

here’s your peacenik Bernie Sanders repeating Beltway talking points about how awful Assad is, and portraying himself as some kind of wise man (invoking how the smartest vote he cast was about the Iraq war.) It’s really insulting, given that Sanders voted for the “Iraq liberation act” during the Clinton years. Who the fuck does he think he’s fooling?

When Chuck Todd makes the point about humanitarian missions, Sanders has the perfect opportunity to say, “Look you imperial mouthpiece mothafucka, US policy has nothing to do with humanitarian missions.” But he didn’t. Instead what he does is repeat the lie about chemical weapons.

This is extremely irresponsible of Mr. Sanders. The little boy who pointed out the emperor had no clothes had an excuse – he was just a little boy. But Mr. Sanders is a seasoned politician who should know the dangers of pointing out the obvious. It gives other people a license to acknowledge what everyone knows, and then the carefully constructed narrative of the great friendship between the United States and Saudi Arabia could collapse.

“I find it remarkable that Saudi Arabia, which borders Iraq and is controlled by a multi-billion dollar family, is demanding that U.S. combat troops have ‘boots on the ground’ against ISIS. Where are the Saudi troops?”

Enough is Enough! Do you want to know how to be at peace, stop going to war. Do you want to know more about Bernie’s foreign policy? It’s to stop fighting in so many wars. It will be the biggest economic stimulus EVER.

Have you all forgotten the numerous times Sanders propped up the lie about “ISIS”, how he went along with Washington and hid the fact that the US and Saudi Arabia are using and arming these terrorist forces?

“A modern American president — Republican or Democrat — operates as the messenger-servant of the country’s corporations, defending them against their critics and ensuring that no obstacles are placed in their way. Since the right to profit is considered sacrosanct, any serious alternative is automatically rejected. In order to ensure the survival of the richest, it is democracy that has to be heavily regulated instead of capitalism. This is the permanent tension that lies at the heart of a capitalist democracy and is exacerbated at times of crisis. The inhuman exigencies of the system precludes policies that would obviously benefit a majority of the population. There have been exceptional conjectures in the past, where a combination of domestic crisis and radical demands from below push an administration in a reformist direction, but their frequency is limited. The New Deal measures in the 1930s and the Civil Rights Act three decades later were the results of action from below.

“Unable and unwilling to deliver any serious reform, Obama has become the master of the sympathetic gesture, the understanding smile, the pained but friendly expression that always appeared to say, “Really, I agree and wish we could, but we can’t. We really can’t and it’s not my fault.” The implication is always that the Washington system prevents any change that he could believe in. But the ring of truth is absent. Whether escalating an unwinnable war, bailing out Wall Street, getting the insurance company lobbyists to write the new ‘health care’ bill or suggest nominations to his cabinet or the Supreme Court, the mechanism he has deployed is always the same. A better option is put on the table for show, but not taken seriously. A worse option is rapidly binned. And a supposed compromise emerges. This creates the impression among party loyalists that the prez is doing his best, that a team of serious thinkers is hard at work considering every possibility, but the better alternative simply isn’t feasible. This is followed by the spin doctors coming down hard to defense some shoddy compromise or other….

“Obama’s aggression is reserved for progressives on his own side, a right uppercut to be deployed against those on his left. As for the rest, it’s business as usual. Corporations of every sort and the politicians and lobbyists attached to them will never be stomped into oblivion. Instead they’re raised on stilts.”

The president’s age does not define her/him. This is 2017 and it is perfectly reasonable to assume that a person in vigorous health will continue on so into their 80s. Family trends also matter, and Bernie has an older brother who is still physically and mentally healthy.

As for that old “he honeymooned in the USSR” canard, if you had bothered to research this instead of just repeating a tired talking point, you would know that he went there to establish a sister city program with Yaroslavl, then in the Soviet Union, now an important city in Russia, just as he did with numerous other sister-cities throughout the world. Yes, it happened right after his marriage to Jane, but 10 other Burlington officials also went along on the trip.

While there is no silver bullet, IMHO the key to our Mid East problems is renewable energy. The USA must ween itself from fossil fuels if it wishes to b free of the Saudis and other detrimental entanglements there.

I find that to be incredibly niave. Saudi Arabia and the rest of the region would still be a NatSec aim to control. Even if their resources dried up tomorrow, they are still instrumental in propagating and carrying out U.S and Israeli hegemony over the region.

The Senator is correct: with the war in Syria winding down, now is a chance to achieve regional peace:
-Iran accepts Israel’s right to exist, so does by extension Hezbollah and Hamas, and Iran keeps its nuclear ambitions in check.
-Israel stops all settlements.
-Palestinian statehood is established (two state or multi state/federation solution).
-Israel makes its own nuclear program more transparent (thanks Intercept for pointing this out previously).
-Trade across the region is expanded, including a shared natural pipeline grid/price structure. Iran, with its diverse economy is a much more logical trading partner with Israel than a one horse economy like Saudi.
-The region becomes a vibrant and prosperous economic trading hub it once was between Eurasia, Asia, Europe and Africa.

-Finally Jerusalem and Mecca become city states, like the the Vatican, but multi religious (Sunni/Shia/Sufi for Mecca, Jewish/Muslim/Christian for Jerusalem), probably the most difficult to achieve…

This is very interesting, Bernie is Jewish, and most Jews, both Israeli and American, are much more anti-Iran than anti-Saudi.

Still, I think his words bear merit, and should not be cast aside lightly. Iran was not always our enemy, and Saudi Arabia may not always be our friend. And to be honest, the Persians are a bit more democratic…

Hi,
Nice to see somebody comes to its senses in the US. However, please make sure you use the correct terms when referring to the one and only Persian Golf.
There is nothing such as Golf or any other name. It has been and always will be Persian Golf.

It’s good to see Bernie finally getting around to studying up on foreign policy. If he had done so 2 years earlier, the world might be a somewhat different place right now. Our antagonism toward Iran is truly ridiculous, and it basically boils down to, “they dared defy us so they must be taught a lesson”.

The most tragic thing about this is that Iran was a rapidly-developing, well-educated, culturally vibrant democratic state before we (and Britain) went and mucked it up. Many of the elements which allowed such progress are still present in Iran’s society, just beneath the veneer of the theocratic state. And theocratic though it may be, that state still is subject to a certain degree of both direct and indirect popular accountability. Not so in the lands under the thumb of the House of Saud.

Totally agree.
1. The US antagonism towards Iran all stemmed from the hostage crisis in 1979 … and let’s remember that all those hostages were eventually released unharmed.
2. Every Iranian I’ve met has been highly intelligent, urbane, thoughtful, politically aware, tolerant, charming and extremely good company. They’ve also encouraged me to go to Iran and stressed that I’d be welcome there.
The media completely ignored the respectful and empathetic reaction in Iran to the 9/11 attacks – football stadiums were silent before the match and there was a candlelit vigil in sympathy with America.
That’s a country that has a great heart and should be engaged, and helped to regain it’s rightful place in the world.
The policy of isolating and vilifying Iran is short-sighted and self-destructive … unless your goal is endless war.

“The media completely ignored the respectful and empathetic reaction in Iran to the 9/11 attacks – football stadiums were silent before the match ”
So true and then the neocons came, people like David Frum, who wrote the infamous “axis of evil” speech that pushed the moderates aside in Iran and caused the mess we are in, in the first place..

All those media outlets with access to millions of Americans reported what happened in Iran after 9/11. They gave a voice to Iranians on the streets and to Iranians politicians. They specifically reported vigils on the streets and what happened in the stadium.
Yet, Josh claimed:

“The media completely ignored the respectful and empathetic reaction in Iran to the 9/11 attacks – football stadiums were silent before the match ”

Yes. A good point well made.
So … I should edit my comment to say that while the press mentioned Iran’s respectful and empathetic response to 9/11, this barely registered in the American consciousness, and somehow we all accepted that Iran was part of the Axis of Evil. Even though the 9/11 hijackers were almost all from Saudi Arabia, this was not considered quite evil enough and Saudi Arabia never made it onto the Axis.

Personally, I think if a careful study were made of the media attention that was given to countries in the 2 years after 9/11 we’d find that while Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran were constantly in the news (in a negative light), Saudi Arabia did not get much attention.

I would also be very interested to see a comparison between the media time given to President Khatami (Wikipedia bio attached below) barely heard of in America, and President Ahmadinejad, a celebrated villain recognised by most Americans.

Mohammad Khatami, President of Iran 1997 to 2005.
Little known until that point, Khatami attracted global attention during his first election to the presidency when he received almost 70% of the vote. Khatami had run on a platform of liberalization and reform. During his two terms as president, Khatami advocated freedom of expression, tolerance and civil society, constructive diplomatic relations with other states including those in Asia and the European Union, and an economic policy that supported a free market and foreign investment.

“So … I should edit my comment to say that while the press mentioned Iran’s respectful and empathetic response to 9/11, this barely registered in the American consciousness, and somehow we all accepted that Iran was part of the Axis of Evil.”

Way way way better!!!! Factually correct!!!

“I would also be very interested to see a comparison between the media time given to President Khatami (Wikipedia bio attached below) barely heard of in America, and President Ahmadinejad, a celebrated villain recognised by most Americans.”

Yeah, but Ahmadinejad made himself a villain. The media just repeated his words. They did not put those words in his mouth.

Seven exclamation marks suggests that face is red with frustration. I hope this is not so. You are right to correct me. “Completely ignored” is loose wording.

Personally I am hugely in favour of Bernie’s attempts to rethink and redress the imbalance between perceptions of Iran and perceptions of Saudi Arabia.

Sure Ahmadinejad was a good villain. But a country looking for peace and progress would have found a good hero in Khatami, and we hardlyly noticed him. He said many good words that were never (ooops, I mean barely) repeated.

Agree with Josh.
In regards to controlled reporting on Saudi, what totally baffles me is that according the UNHCR database looked at just this moment, there were in 2016, a grand total, check this, grand total of 29 displaced persons from Syria in Saudi Arabia.
29!!!!
And there not one, not one single press story, article, documentary, in any language, about this flabbergasting scandal.

Well more precisely, US antagonism toward Iran goes back to the 1953 overthrow of Mosaddegh’s democratically-elected government. The CIA literally bused people — mostly mobsters and gangs — into Tehran to stage a coup. Why? Because Mosaddegh wanted to use Iran’s natural resources (read: oil) for the benefit of Iran. While we ceased our antagonism towards the Iranian government for that time, I’d say propping up a dictator on such a proud people constitutes antagonism.

After a few decades of repression the Iranians had their revolution, and as the U.S. grappled with the resultant spike in oil prices it turned to the total backwater Arabian state. The inflow of western culture and capital triggered an Islamist backlash which the Saudis caved to 100%, and the U.S. turned a blind eye as they proliferated Wahhabi extremism in every direction.

Obama, whatever else he was, at least understood all of this (you can see a similar understanding of our injustices in his overtures to Cuba). His ruinous fracking policies were designed to make us energy-independent from the Saudis ASAP, in order to facilitate the beginnings of a rapprochement with Iran. It was a success, and we got the Iran nuclear deal. Then we elected a man whose sole motivation in political office is to undo everything Obama did or tried to do, and here we are.

Also … can someone explain this mystery to me … why was there no back-lash from Trump’s supporters when he visited Saudi Arabia and was so comfortable with the Saudis? I thought Trump’s base was basically xenophobic, and specifically Islamophobic. I really can’t understand why people who voted for Trump were so comfortable with his special relationship with the head of a key Muslim country.

Just make it clear … I have Muslim friends and colleagues who I’m very fond of, and the Muslims that I know are wonderful, warm-hearted, sweet, funny, respectful people. I’m not encouraging anti-Islamic sentiment. Just very confused why Trump voters give Saudi Arabia a pass.

I think your question relates to neverhillary. More than any real adherence to any set of beliefs. The DuNCes still don’t get it, touting record book sales. And Bernie doesn’t either, or he would not be the same demogogue. I mean democog.

“why was there no back-lash from Trump’s supporters when he visited Saudi Arabia and was so comfortable with the Saudis?”

Trump’s supporters do not have a problem making money with Muslims. They have a problem with Muslims or Hispanics coming to America because they don’t look like them. They called Obama a Muslim because he does not look like them.

Thanks. That makes sense. But really? … even selling weapons to the nation who’s citizens carried out 9-11 ?
I’m surprised that Trump voters can distinguish between Saudis, Iraqis and Iranians, and I thought they classed them all as potential terrorists.

If Trump converted to Islam his horde of worshippers would insist that the framers of the Constitution were Muslims as they stood in line for their Trump-brand print of the Qur’an.

There is no substance to their veneration; they know and care as little for policy as he does. Their loyalty is borne of his ability to “stick it to the man” — especially “that” black man — and his dehumanization of ILLEGAL ALIENS (all caps necessary). They probably only hate Muslims because they think Obama is one of them.

I have met Trump voters in America. No, they do not make sense. They use Obamacare, they claim they care about clean water, clean air, but they still vote Trump. Trump’s is following Obama’s policies in Iraq and Afghanistan, but they still claim Trump’s policies are better in those countries. Most Trump voters do not have a problem with Obama’s policies. They have a problem with the man called Obama. I even asked them what evidence would they need to accept that he was born in Hawaii. They said none. They saw Hillary Clinton as the continuation of this man who represents the new diversified America. America is a country that denies facts for a long time before it accepts it. The number of Americans who deny global warming is baffling. The number of Americans who deny Trump got elected thanks largely to racism is also baffling.

@Jake
you ask: Can someone explain this mystery to me … why was there no back-lash from Trump’s supporters when he visited Saudi Arabia and was so comfortable with the Saudis? I thought Trump’s base was basically xenophobic, and specifically Islamophobic.
Answer: Because his base is not xenophobic and Islamophobic. That’s fake news meant to divide and conquer. Trump voters were snookered into believing his foreign policy would be diplomacy first, war last. He adopted Bernie’s mantra when Bernie conceded the primary to HRC

Thanks for a different perspective, and for challenging my assumptions.
I want to believe that the majority of people have good values and I’m glad to hear someone saying that.

The Travel Ban aimed specifically at Muslims seems Islamophobic to me, and the fact that Saudis are not banned is doubly mysterious because it means that the Travel Ban would not have prevented the 9/11 attacks.

If you have any more explanations … honestly … I would really like to know, because this has puzzled me a lot.
It’s hard for me to

Thanks to Hillary and the corrupt DNC Bernie was not our presidential candidate and he should have been.
Because of this the group that would have become the democrats predictable base does not trust them.
Bernie is great but he is clearly an outlier in an otherwise stagnant and corrupt party

Very brave comments by Bernie given the business he’s in. Can’t remember any politician as high-profile as him making such scathing public comments about the Saudis. The juxtaposition with the Clintons – posturing as tough on terror, hard as steel in women’s/LGBT rights – is painful.

I don’t often say this, but I agree with Bernie Sanders on these points of foreign policy. If anything, he doesn’t go nearly far enough in his criticism, but I’ll take it anyway.

I passionately disagree with the far Left on economic and (many) domestic issues. But their saving grace is their cogent critique of US foreign policy. Bernie has been a disappointment in this area, in contrast to someone like Jill Stein who was much better on foreign policy. But if this signals a shift for Bernie in prioritizing foreign policy and being more consistently anti-war, then I welcome that change.

There are a very small number of good anti-war voices in Washington anymore. Anyone, Left or Right, who wants to end these wars of aggression and occupation is someone who I support, at least as far as these issues are concerned.

Neolibs and Neocons share the belief that they are morally superior – the details vary, but that is how they license themselves.

When the “Neos” need to, they make Saddam Hussein their hero, and when they need to, Saddam Hussein is a goat!

Whether it is Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Sudan, Nigeria, Venezuela, Chile, …. the relationship, as the Czech president said today, is one of the master (superior) and the student (who takes orders).

One thing about “Neos” we should all know is that they are not smart – they are bullies. The reason they think they are smart is because smart people walk away from them. They take this to mean that they must be smart. What they don’t get is that smart people say to themselves – I won’t waste my time on this idiot!

Don’t feed the Neo birdies here – let them fly away. Perhaps then we can have a reasonable discussion.

Mr. Sanders has cracked the door open to a more rational discussion – about Iran, SA, Israel, … but rather than having a real discussion, the “Neos” here are trying to distract from it again. Let’s ignore the Neos – not respond to their comments – maybe they will go away.

You know I saw this breakdown of $’s on a podcast (Joe Rogen). How long is 1 million minutes?… approx. 11 days. How long is 1 Billion minutes….37 1/2 years. That kind of wealth is staggering.
The Middle East a myriad of Muslim ideologies.Wahhabi fundamentalism has been taught since the 70’s. A cancer that has metastasized thru the globe.
In-fighting has overtaken the regions, and Israel has become a Saudi Allie
in this terrorist hell-scape.
What could go wrong with American drone murder’s and a president who can only use mob- flavored aphorisms would be a grim guess at best.

Bernie, once again, has some relevant strategies based in sanity. He really should be leading the country…owe well he kind of is.

Abandon Saudi Arabia and rapprochement with Iran is the only sane foreign policy and one some of us have advocated for at least the last 20 years.

Iran should be part of the future and an ally and trading partner of the US. It’s population is young and well educated, democratically inclined and not a bunch of religious zealots like the Saudis. The Mullahs days are numbered. Saudi Arabia, like Israel, and any other ethno-theocracies and/or literal monarchies should be shunned and cut off from US trade and aid.

Now if Bernie Sanders would go one step further in his foreign policy evolution and start asking the “elephant in the room question” i.e. why does the US need to spend as much on its military as the next 10 nations combined; and have troops garrisoned all over the globe fighting a phantom of its own creation (“war on tactic/noun”) and bombing the ever living baby bejeesus out of poor peasants all over the globe who are not now, nor will they ever be, an existential threat to the United States of America or its “interests”; and, then we might start asking the right questions and having the proper democratic debate in this nation about what America’s “national interest” are or should be.

With roughly 6000 + nuclear warheads and the most massive funded military on the planet, the only thing that is ever going to destroy America is the avarice and stupidity of its politicians, and all those suckling off the MICC tit, until it bankrupts this nation or we become the most heavily armed belligerent third world nation on the planet.

any other ethno-theocracies and/or literal monarchies should be shunned and cut off from US trade and aid

I wouldn’t go as far as that. Why is there a need to antagonize anyone? There might be some disagreements about how a society should be run, probably valid concerns too, but so what? Societies should be self-determined, not meddled with. (I do agree no country should accept “aid” — it always comes with strings attached.)

And why exactly would I want anything to do with a theocrat or a monarchist?

The problems with theocracy and monarchy have been well known and understood since the Enlightenment.

You’ve always struck me as a pretty smart individual judging by your comments, so why the need to refrain from “antagonizing” theocrats and monarchs?

But please don’t misunderstand me, I don’t want to “antagonize” anyone, but neither am I obligated to show fealty or deference to absurd political systems that lack legitimacy in my eyes. Moreover, I believe in the right of self-determination (although that’s a bit of a head scratcher when it comes to absolute monarchies and theocracies since neither could be legitimate forms of government in my eyes), and I don’t believe the ones that exist or may exist in the future should be “meddled with” by the US or any other nation.

But I also don’t believe America or American taxpayers should have anything whatsoever to do with perpetuating them either through trade or aid (except humanitarian), and we should only maintain pleasant diplomatic relations with them, but we should never engage them as treaty “allies” particularly in any military context. I don’t ever want to be in the position as an American or American taxpayer of having to militarily aid theocratic or monarchist governments, ever. And obviously I mean absolute monarchist governments not the symbolic or constitutional/parliamentary ones like UK or Sweden or whatever.

I am well aware. But I don’t think Iran will be much longer given the age, education and inclination of Iran’s younger generations. I believe the days of the mullahs are approaching an end and given that trajectory the US should engage in rapprochement to that end without threats and violence. If, within a reasonable amount of time, Iran/Iranians choose to remain a theocracy, then I’d cut ties.

“But I don’t think Iran will be much longer given the age, education and inclination of Iran’s younger generations”

Saudi population is young, educated and disinclined towards religion as well. So, how do you get that conclusion on Iran, but you described Saudis as a bunch of religious zealots? Have you even checked any data on Saudi Arabia?

“believe the days of the mullahs are approaching an end and given that trajectory the US should engage in rapprochement to that end without threats and violence.”

You can believe whatever you want that does not mean it is true. Moreover, none of you can even explain what the hell rapprochement with Iran means. There are already multi billion dollars transactions between Iran and the US. What exactly do you want the US to do?

So then you do want something to do with a theocracy, as long as you can look into your crystal ball and determine they will at some point in the future they wont be. Oh and I’m guessing they are on what you consider the correct political side.

I wouldn’t cut ties. We operate our government using the same system but our God is money. It’s the multinationals and high net worth individuals who pick our candidates. Mullahs pick the candidates in Iran. It’s technically the same system as it relates to who we vote for.

We’re entering the same trajectory as Iran did in the 70s due to an abusive power structure if we don’t change course. A radical, authoritarian government could arise out of the mess we’ve made, as we stray further away from the ideas of the Bill Of Rights and the Constitution.

Even at the state level, corruption can be more rampant because most people don’t pay attention to state power structures. That’s why the GOP push’s State’s rights, it’s easier to get away with corruption on that level.

“And why exactly would I want anything to do with a theocrat or a monarchist”

Umm, you do realize that Iran is an Islamic Republic, with a non elected Supreme leader right? Apotasy and other religious offences are capital crimes and the state has indeed executed people for those offenses.

Yes he does, but he is willing to disregard Iran’s crimes simply because Iran is an adversary of the US. Even crimes committed against US citizens on US soil. The so called rapprochement he is promoting is just a way to express his anti American sentiment. He does not want anything to do with a theocrat or a monarchist if the theocrat or the monarchist is a US ally.

“I do agree no country should accept “aid” — it always comes with strings attached.”

Tell us what should they do with the refugees if they don’t accept aid? You have to elaborate on your ideas or they become nonsense. If Afghanistan refuses economic aids, healthcare aids, education aids, its citizens will run away mainly to Pakistan, which is a poor country. What do you propose to Pakistan?
Jordan cannot handle that many Syrian refugees by itself. What do you want Jordan to do with 1M refugees without aids?
1) Be specific. What do you mean by aids? Economic aids? Security aids? Humanitarian aids?
2) Tell us how you would handle the consequences of a lack of aids.

“Abandon Saudi Arabia and rapprochement with Iran is the only sane foreign policy and one some of us have advocated for at least the last 20 years.”

Why? Saudi Arabia is not a democracy. Iran is not a democracy. Saudi Arabia supports armed (terrorist groups) in other countries. Iran supports armed (terrorist groups) in other countries. Saudi Arabia is blamed for serious human rights abuses. Iran is blamed for serious human rights abuses.

“(Iran) It’s population is young and well educated, democratically inclined and not a bunch of religious zealots like the Saudis”

Saudi Arabia population is young and educated as well. The number of Saudis that are not religious and even atheists has been growing for the last decade.

“The Mullahs days are numbered. ”

Based on what?

“Saudi Arabia, like Israel, and any other ethno-theocracies and/or literal monarchies should be shunned and cut off from US trade and aid.”

Iran is a theocracy.

As usual you present a completely illogical argument. You want the US to abandon Saudi Arabia because it is a despotic regime in order to get closer to another despotic regime called Iran, which has a history of killing US citizens on their soil and on other sovereign states. Even US courts blame Iran for terrorism against US citizens.

Why you guys perform all that exercise? Go straight to the point. You just want to express your anti Americanism by glossing over Iran’s crimes like many of you try to gloss over North Korea’s patent violations of international agreements. You don’t gloss over Israel’s or Saudi Arabia’s crimes because it is an ally of the US. If Iran was an ally of the US you would lose your mind whenever the US president goes to Tehran to shake hands with the Ayatollah whose country has been severely criticized for its human abuses that include the execution of minors.

to shake hands with the Ayatollah whose country has been severely criticized for its human abuses that include the execution of minors.

You mean executing minors just like in America until 2005 when minors could be given the death sentence?

Here, I’ll get straight to the point, I’m not anti-American, I’m an American who wants my country to be better. It isn’t getting better, nor has it in the past, being allied with Saudi Arabia or Israel.

And if you believe that Iran is responsible for more “terrorism” of human beings on this planet than my nation, America, then you’re factually and historically illiterate.

And if Iran has any beef with the West, you can take it up with the British and US governments and the overthrow of Mosaddegh and the installation of the Shah and SAVAK. Or take it up with the US and its backing of Saddam Hussein when the latter made war on Iran and its people for almost a decade.

I’m not glossing over anyone’s crimes, I’m trying to have a little perspective about the scope, scale, nature and targets of those crimes vis a vis the US and its historical actions.

You’re basically an idiot and I’m not even sure why I engage your pathetic high school level sophistry.

“And if you believe that Iran is responsible for more “terrorism” of human beings on this planet than my nation, America, then you’re factually and historically illiterate.”

Who told you Iran is responsible for more terrorism of human beings on this planet? Is this something you pulled out of your ass?

“And if Iran has any beef with the West, you can take it up with the British and US government…”

Half of the countries on this planet has a beef with the West. Your argument is still illogical. You want to US to abandon Saudi Arabia because it is a despotic regime that fuels conflicts in the Middle East. At the same time you want the US to have a rapprochement with Iran, a despotic regime that fuels conflicts in the Middle East. Calling me names, talking about a bunch of BS do not fix your nonsense. As of 2017, Saudi Arabia and Iran are both despotic regimes regardless of the French, British empire or the US imperialist policies.

“I’m not glossing over anyone’s crimes, I’m trying to have a little perspective about the scope, scale, nature and targets of those crimes vis a vis the US and its historical actions.”

What is the perspective on Iran? They execute more people than Saudi Arabia. They support Hezbollah that massacred Lebanese citizens on their soil. They severely repressed Iranian citizens who dare to challenge the theocracy. And this is the regime with which you want rapprochement.

“You’re basically an idiot and I’m not even sure why I engage your pathetic high school level sophistry.”

I don’t have to call you names. Your pal Mona called you an idiot a few months ago, not me. I will only advise you to pull your head out of your posterior.

Dude, you want rapprochement with Iran simply because it is an official adversary of the US. Iran is doing the same thing Saudi Arabia is doing. In some cases Iran’s actions are even worse than SA. You have a problem with SA fueling conflicts in Yemen, but you don’t have a problem with Iran fueling conflicts in Lebanon/Israel because Israel is a US ally and Iran is supporting a US enemy (Hezbollah). Go straight to the point! Don’t waste that much energy.

Much of Iran’s actions in the region have been reactionary. History and context matters, which is why Neocons and the multinationals who own our politicians like to gloss over how we got here. You’re just another voice in our corrupt society trying to draw a false equivalency.

There would be no Iran revolution without the despotic government supported by the Gulf States, European allies, Likud and Neocons in the US. There would be no Hezbollah if not for the policies of terror supported by the US and Israel in Beirut during the 70s and 80s. Beirut has a functioning government today but as a kid, I remember watching other kids with rocks being gunned down and living in bombed out homes. Those kids became Hezbollah in the 80s as a resistance to terror.

Having at least one powerful country that can speak confidently to the abuses and corruption in the world could be a powerful thing. When the US government acts like oligarchies in Russia and corrupt third world countries, it leaves a vacuum everywhere. We’ve not been completely helpful, although there are sprinkles of benevolent action, which keep the promise alive.

That’s why we criticize because the best of what we are has been struggling to lead us into an era of enlightenment. But, at each moment, those voices and movements have been successfully derailed throughout the world through violence supported by the US and hegemonic entities who use our government to maintain power. From Africa, to South America to the ME, we’ve constantly supported movements who destroyed people that loved the idea of America.

If you want to continue using the same argument used to get us into every illegal war and support for anti-human adventures you can continue that thought process for the most gullible.

“They hate us for our freedoms.” ‘You support Saddam and the terrorists over America.’ ”They repeat death to America so they’re a threat.’ No one is falling for such deflections anymore. Criticizing the foreign policy of America and it’s corrupt allies is becoming a patriotic stance. We want a better country that will live up to the idea. As it stands today, that idea is for marketing purposes, used by people like you to call critics anti-American, while the most corrupt among us go unchallenged pushing their anti-American ideology.

“You’re just another voice in our corrupt society trying to draw a false equivalency.”

That statement came from you, so it has no value to me.

“There would be no Hezbollah if not for the policies of terror supported by the US and Israel in Beirut during the 70s and 80s……”

Explain to us why is it okay for Iran to support Hezbollah, an armed group located thousands miles away from its soil. An organization that is responsible for terrorist acts against Lebanese citizens and is involved in a conflict that does not affect Iranian citizens. Iran even had Israeli military advisers helping the Ayatollahs. After you do that, then explain to us you have a problem when the US supports Saudi Arabia that does the same in other countries, but you want the US to abandon Saudi Arabia and get closer to Iran.

“Having at least one powerful country that can speak confidently to the abuses and corruption in the world could be a powerful thing. ”

What is that country?

“If you want to continue using the same argument used to get us into every illegal war and support for anti-human adventures…”

Be specific and tell me what argument did I use that supports illegal wars?

“Criticizing the foreign policy of America and it’s corrupt allies is becoming a patriotic stance.”

Who told you criticizing the foreign policy of America and it’s corrupt allies was not a patriotic stance? Be specific please.

“As it stands today, that idea is for marketing purposes, used by people like you to call critics anti-American”

I call people who SPECIFICALLY demand that American abandons its despotic allies in order to get closer to its despotic adversaries that killed US citizens anti Americans. I call people who SPECIFICALLY gloss over crimes committed by US adversaries in order to distort facts to blame the US. For instance, people like you. There is absolutely nothing reactionary about Iran abuses against its own citizens. Abuses well documented over decades. They can stop those abuses tomorrow. The same way there is absolutely nothing reactionary about Saudi Arabia abuses against its own citizens. The patriot would state our country should not have anything to do with neither of those despotic regimes. The anti American (you) tries to legitimate the actions of the despotic regime that is the official adversary of the US while condemning the actions of the despotic regime that is allied to the US.

“They hate us for our freedoms.”

I did not say that. It was US politicians who said it, and ISIS actually said in their official magazine Dabiq, 15th Edition that they hate the west for its freedoms.

(Like most of the anti US crew, you pulled your information out of your ass)

Usa isn’t a therapist. If it’s gonna play that role do so to the brutality to all the many countries. At the same time though the results end up neglecting it’s own people with the cost that it brings forth which is sad.

What I’m curious about is Sanders’ position concerning the Kurds, or Erdogan’s relentless determination to drag Turkey into a theocratic dictatorship . Israel’s up to something re: their support for Kurds, while Putin’s eagerly fueling destabilization any way and anywhere he can (not that the US is innocent of this), and probably has been doing all he can to bring a US/DPRK war to fruition. Meanwhile, US evangelicals are the most unswervingly loyal to Israeli hardliners, and have been a steadily growing cancer within the US military (especially USAF), and China continues to manufacture and ship enormous quantities of opiods/fentanyl etc. (satisfying payback for Opium Wars for them, no doubt). I have no rose-colored glasses when it comes to any actor, but Kissinger-style realpolitik in an unholy marriage with Dominionist-flavored delusion has brought the US to a very dangerous precipice indeed. What would Smedley Butler think today? He wouldn’t be surprised, that much is safe to say.

Think of the Trump-TV ratings in prime time to see them hurl insults at each other. Best TV ever!!! Better than throwing Nukes at each other. Both seem so shallow in thought that the best result would be a Mexican stand-off, same as we have had the last 70 years.

I agree with everything Sanders said in this article, though I’d put it even more strongly (Saudi Arabia is a rogue outlaw nation that abuses and tortures its own people, especially women, and is committing mass murder in Yemen, etc.). But if Sanders were elected president and tried to follow through on those ideas, he’d likely join JFK. That doesn’t mean that he shouldn’t do it, it means that we’re up against massive and insidious power.

Allies are partners in crime.
It is the job of the currency printers to fund the wallstreet bankster thieves whose job it is to fund population growth and enforce destruction then re-building to create fraudulent economies. This criminal enterprise pays the media to CULTivate followers and subscribers. The separation between the criminal economy of wealthy thieves and the impoverished and powerless increases so that the powerful criminal cartel can enforce its agenda.

Capitalism without socialism is monopolism. Capitalism without communism is facism.

Mr. Vivek: why don’t you try running for president? And then we’ll see. All of your comments seem so one sided. I don’t see any balanced reasoning in your input to point out weaknesses and strengths. I am left to think that you are some sort of troll around here.

Sen. Graham nailed the Saudis for aiding in the 9/11 attacks in December of 2002. Where were you? Obama made plenty of deals with the Saudis over his 8 years, including funneling weapons to ISIS and Al Qaeda in Syria. Where were you? Seymour Hersh told us about the Rat Line and the secret deals. Where were you?

Protecting Saudis after they aided 9/11 hijackers here inside the US is technically high Treason. Where were you?

How an Iran War Was Averted | April 12, 2016
“Exclusive: A decade ago, the Bush administration was eager to bomb Iran but U.S. intelligence analysts challenged the casus belli by finding that Iran was not building a nuclear bomb, recalls ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern.”

Actually, Washington is VERY afraid of Iran, which is why it started the ‘Iran nuclear weapons’ hoax in the first place (after the attempt to break Iranians will with the genocidal Saddam and the use of WMDs on them failed)
And the reason Washington is so scared of Iran? The same reason any bully is afraid of someone who has stood up to them successfully.

Vivek Jain your point escapes me. I’m a boollicker I suppose. You talk of two points in US-Iranian history that I find unrelated to Bernie’s thrust. Gen Mattis has two grudges, Iranaian support for fighters in Iraq that killed his soldiers, and Iranian dalliances in other areas like Syria. Gen Mattis is encouraged by others in the administration. So they are in the President’s sights.

Saudi is a far worse supporter of radical Islam, and radical extremist activity in many countries. Then, they are massacring Yemeni.
So we have an administration that tells us Saudi good – Iran bad. That is just nonsense.
Bernie is saying there is rapprochement with Iran, and they are not the enemy we think they are. And Saudi is not the the Sisters of Charity and out allies.

Likud, the GCC, NATO and psychopath Neocons in the US. Call them all out. Enough is enough. We’ve never fought terrorism. We helped create them, then, blame Muslims so the most gullible can look the other way due to their petty bigotry.

I hope he continues to speak out on foreign policy. The Democratic Party establishment displays zero interest in challenging Trump’s military escalations; they outright applauded him when he launched missiles at Syria. The antiwar left largely vanished once GW Bush left office. Maybe it will gain strength again now.

“I consider [Saudi Arabia] to be an undemocratic country that has supported terrorism around the world, it has funded terrorism. … They are not an ally of the United States.”

Who really disagrees with this? Yeah Saudi Arabia and Pakistan etc are all terrible. The thing is, there’s never going to be a liberal democracy there, much less the kind of cuddly Scandinavian style social democracy that Sanders admires. That’s just not part of their culture. The only plausible alternative there would be a failed state run by Salafist warlords. As long as the Saudis and Gulf nations have all the oil, and the rest of the Islamic world remains 80% Sunni and Iran refuses to bow to Israel we’ll tilt toward SA.

That is not an excuse for backing them in their quest to be the dominant force in the Middle East. The majority of the ME may be Sunni, but it is not Wahabi. Many Sunnis are pretty sick of SA’s behavior. It is not inevitable that we tilt toward the Saudi’s. In fact it would make sense to encourage more moderate regimes such as Iran has become. And we should be getting off the damn oil. Bernie is right and I am glad to see him speaking out on foreign policy. I hope he continues to do so.

Having lived in Yemen for several years back in the 1990s, it’s a real place to me with real people just trying to live. Looking at the cities now on Google Earth you can see hundreds of buildings destroyed by bombing.

He is taking a bold Corbyn-like stance on foreign policy…he still has more to say, but what 2 party candidate would say any of these things…if not running he is putting a progressive/labor coalition together fueld by the young and idealistic..

Saudi Arabia is an alpha male.
Israel – also an alpha male – taunts the US – which makes the relationship too transactional for warmth.
Iran isn’t.
Drone strikes/kills have already created the next generation of insurgents.

Alpha males are big, dumb, and destructive. I wouldn’t call Saudi or Israel big or dumb. The Saudi armed forces are a joke. The Israelis have no real armed forces without the US pouring weapons and armor into the country’s hands. Both are really effective at espionage and fomenting/controlling terror cells ostensibly fighting against their own allies. They’re tricky, ruthless, and destructive. More like an Omega.

jesus, the amt of trolling comments here is almost as appalling as the idealistic comments. Y’all seems to be looking for perfection in an imperfect world-pragmatic much? Here u have arguably the most progressive U.S. politician making incredibly progressive statements and condemning the Saudi’s, Trump, U.S. treatment of Iran, that the United States is “complicit” in Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories and y’all still find things to bitch about….like what the hell else do you want. This is what give legitimacy to the “out of touch alt-left fringe.” everything the man said was reasonable and progressive. Its like if he doesn’t make it absolutes then its not good enough-lemme clue y’all in-human being dont deal in absolutes and we all make mistakes. Seriously, think of the future and posturing for presidential run and making some of the statements many of you wish he would lead to certain failure so then we get what? another trump? harris? come back to reality yall

“A Saudi-led coalition backed by the U.S. has been bombing Iranian-backed Houthi fighters in Yemen since 2015″

How often will this be repeated by TI before they offer some substantiation for the claim?

No evidence that the Houthis are backed by Iran has ever been presented by anyone making the claim, but I expect accuracy from TI… so… include a cite or link that supplies actual evidence rather than assertions by untrustworthy, and/or unnamed officials.

Reporting unsupported claims as if they are facts is called lying.
Just because the NYT and WashPo report that claim as if it’s a fact doesn’t mean TI gets a pass.
Those establishment shills are not worthy of mimicry, and TI is causing harm to their reputation by following them into the ethically challenged gutter.

“Just because the NYT and WashPo report that claim as if it’s a fact doesn’t mean TI gets a pass.”

TI is not only relying on NYT and WashPo. TI relied on Iona Craig, a reporter who writes for TI and who was based in Yemen for years. She stated

“In the last few months — as you know we’re going into the third year of war now in Yemen — there has been growing evidence of Iranian involvement on the weapons front. Ballistic missiles … have clearly been modified, and new missiles have been built in Yemen to fire over the Saudi border — long-range missiles that did not exist in the Yemeni arsenal before this war have been used.” Iona Craig, March 25, 2017

Tell us what kind of evidence would you want and who should give you that evidence? The UN? A neutral country (if there is any)?

I’ve read everything Iona Craig has written on the subject and NONE OF IT qualifies as evidence of Iranian backing of the Houthi’s.

Her assertions without evidence are no different than those emanating from intelligence agencies.
The article you are quoting didn’t come close to delivering on the claim made in the title.

Oooh.
A slightly improved missile is the proof?
As if Iran is the only possible source for minor advancements… ruling out other countries, and such things as experimentation and publicly available information.

Fine. Now tell us what evidence would you accept, who should give you that evidence and why you would trust that individual/organization. You do not trust independent journalists, Western intel agencies, and definitely not the UN.

Do not worry about me. Make your case by telling us what evidence would you accept and who should give you that evidence and why that individual/organization should be trusted.

Again, you of all people troll out nonsense and straw men about trust… when you have a record of being untrustworthy.
The lack of evidence is clear.
.
Those making the false claims are required to make the case.
They haven’t in any way, shape or form.
The definition of evidence is readily available. Hint- something verifiable that can be presented beyond empty assertion.

And, for the record, Craig was raising doubts about the false claim of “Iranian backing” for years due to the complete lack of evidence. TI journalists repeated the false claim again and again long before Craig’s article you quoted was written… so they couldn’t have been relying on her as you falsely claimed.
Her unsubstantiated suggestion that a single use of a missile fired at SA using 1930’s technology in an article about an event that actually occurred after she had left Yemen could not possibly be their source.
If they had been relying on her prior to that report, they would have been reporting doubts.
That doesn’t match the record.
Your revisionism is once again on display.

Fine.
Now tell us what evidence would you accept, who should give you that evidence and why would you trust that individual or organization.

I did not ask you about Iona Craig’s evidence because you already said you will not accept it. I did not ask you about Western intelligence agencies because you already said you will not accept them. My question is extremely is easy. Example: what evidence would you accept that David killed Jennifer in LA, who should give you that evidence and why would you trust that organization?
Response: I would accept DNA evidence from an international UN panel of investigators. I trust them because they have no association with the LAPD or the Feds. You see? Very simple.

What evidence would I accept?
What have you got?
None.
None is utterly unconvincing.

What have intelligence agencies offered?
None.
Empty assertion without evidence is not evidence according to the definition of the word.
I’m not refusing to accept their evidence liar.
They would have to offer some first for it to be possible to refuse to accept it genius.

As for Craig, you made the claim that TI was relying on her reporting when that is factually incorrect. They would have had to time travel for that claim to be possible. It is relevant that you have again shown yourself to be untrustworthy.

If you are not going to accept any evidence from anybody, then do not waste your time telling us this evidence is bad or that evidence is insufficient. No intelligent club would include you in their staff if you are doing all that exercise telling us that evidence is not sufficient while as a principle you will not accept any evidence from anybody that contradicts your belief. Basically you could save yourself time and energy by stating that you will not accept any evidence that Iran is supporting the Houthis regardless of the source of that evidence.

“As for Craig, you made the claim that TI was relying on her reporting when that is factually incorrect. ”

It is your business whether you accept it or not, but Craig is a writer for TI who had stayed in Yemen and who had stated many times that Iran backs the Houthi rebels. Basically we supposed to accept your assertions that TI is repeating the Washington Post and NYT, but it is “factually incorrect ” that TI is repeating the words of her own writer who is well experienced in the subject being reported. Dude, there is a commenter called Gladio and another called Grace, talk to them. I guarantee you they will praise your distorted logic and they will make you feel you are smart.

I know of no one and no legitimate source that claims that there is no connection between Iran and the Houthis. The level of support has been exaggerated, but that doesn’t mean that there’s no support at all. Iran certainly wants the Houthis to succeed and is certainly enemies with Saudi Arabia.

That said, U.S. support for Saudi Arabia in Yemen greatly exceeds that of Iran for the Houthis. Moreover, the Houthis are the only legitimate group vying for power in Yemen, so once again, the U.S. is on the wrong side.

You say the claims of Iranian backing have been exaggerated, yet it exists even though no evidence has ever been presented.
Pardon my reluctance to embrace the “everyone says so” argument that originated from those supporting the regime change war/anti-Iran crusade.

RIGHT ON.. BERNIE!
Where do i sign up to become your bodyguard?
I’ll do it for free.. long live Bernie Saunders.
Now a Solar Energy Conversion program funded by fossil fuel profits is the single most important issue that is not yet discussed or addressed in any media.
Solar Energy is the Future and THE FUTURE IS NOW!..

Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn are rising voices in the West against Saudi Arabia and their misadventures in the region. To start with we should boycott, Saudi ARAMCO IPO and also boycott anyone who invests in this IPO. Hit them where it hurts.

Sanders goes on and on as he should about the Saudis. He says that Trump’s a racist. But he NEVER says anything about apartheid Israel? If anyone complains about this, his standard response? GODDAMNIT! SHUT THE HELL UP! Maybe it’s good he didn’t get the nomination.

We don’t need to ‘reach out’ to Iran either. Stop the mass sale of weapons to unstable, undemocratic countries and stop fiddling in the affairs of sovereign states. It really is that simple but there’s far too much money invested to do that…

Did you…not read the article? I think maybe you didn’t read the article.

“the independent senator said the United States is “complicit” in Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories and said he would be willing to consider voting to cut U.S. aid to the Jewish state.”

Except that he DID address Israel. You need to read the whole article before commenting. The first paragraph does not an informed reader make.

“In a wide-ranging interview ahead of his set-piece speech on foreign policy in Fulton, Missouri, on Thursday morning, the independent senator said the United States is “complicit” in Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories and said he would be willing to consider voting to cut U.S. aid to the Jewish state.”

Did you miss this part of the article? What Sanders said– “the United States is “complicit” in Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories and said he would be willing to consider voting to cut U.S. aid to the Jewish state.”

You’re wrong on two different levels, because you didn’t bother to read the whole article.

1. Sanders does address Israel here, he says he’s even willing to vote for cutting military aid to Israel. Tell me of a US politician who said the same thing, I don’t have a lot of exemples right now, and those that I do have didn’t make this threat as a SITTING US SENATOR

2. This isn’t the full interview, it’s just pieces to make people read the full one. It’ll be posted tomorrow.

I’m with him on most of this. I hate the Saudi govt too but Im not big on a bunch of of our allies and trading partners. I’d say that rhetoric is a bit hard-line? Either way I think Bernie needs to focus on building a team of progessive talent and going local. In other words, less time spent on his own agenda and more spent working on building a more powerful base complete with names and faces, on every podium or in front of as many cameras as possible.

But be watchful that Sanders is not talking about other Rogue nation Israel which is pushing US to destroy International agreement with the same zeal as Saudi Rogue state. 50% of today’s world problems are caused by these (2) nations. Be ware of Sanders. Unless he is not dare to strongly stated that Israeli policy is Apartheid in nature he should no be trusted. Sometime you have to call black is black and white is white. Thank you

On the contrary, a government that has supported attacks on the US and terrorism throughout the world IS not an ally. It is an enemy, whether the succession of criminal US regimes treat it as an ally or otherwise.

I hope you pressured him to tell us exactly what he means by a new approach with Iran. His approach to Saudi Arabia is clear: stop selling them weapons because they are undemocratic and they repress their people. What does he propose with Iran? Iran is not democratic, they repress their people and they support terrorism.

“described U.S. drone strikes against innocent civilians as one of the “root causes” of terrorism”

1) he meant drone strikes against terrorists that resulted in civilian deaths.
2) I bet all my life savings he will not stop drone strikes if he gets elected.

chest beating? economic abuse?
Dude, politicians are under no obligation to say anything nice about other nations. Sovereign states are under no obligations to have business transactions with others. Nevertheless, the US already does business with Iran (hellooo $20bn with Boeing!).

Technically, our democracy is a lot like Iran’s generalizing). They’re just open about it. The top leaders pick the candidates for the people to select. It’s corporations who pick our candidates but we love the illusion.

No. I am just waiting for your point if you have one. You think the US does not care about democracy or repressed people. So? And? that is your opinion. What am I supposed to tell you about it? I only asked what would be Sander’s approach to Iran.

“I only asked what would be Sander’s approach to Iran.”
That is not true, your comment contained more than that question: “Iran is not democratic, they repress their people and they support terrorism.”
This suggests that you care about that (but only in relation to Iran?, try to be more clear).

Anyway, your question is futile but on Friday we can read the whole interview.

Just out of curiosity, what country (countries) do you see as being worthy of the title ‘democracy’?
Need to know so I can point out your hypocrisy in claiming that Iran isn’t (every democracy has shortcomings when it comes to the ideal, even the US) a democracy.

Democracy has a clear definition. If you want you can have your own definition of democracy. Iran is a theocracy not a democracy. But if you want you can call Iran, North Korea or even Saudi Arabia a democracy ( North Korean leadership call themselves democrats). Not a single country will have a political system that is 100% democracy or even 100% monarchy. A democracy is judged by the degree of power the citizens possess. Those citizens pick freely the people who represent them and they fire them freely through elections. Example: Switzerland.

Well, when everyone has his own definition of democracy, it becomes hard to have a discussion. Dismissing everything as an opinion is a way to avoid a discussion, but opinions based on historical facts are more relevant.

Fact is that Iran’s current government is more democratic than under the shah. Fact is that Iran preferred a democracy with religious leaders on top over the U.S. installed dictator.

My opinion is that Iran will become more democratic and moderate when the U.S. ceases to put pressure on Iran.

Another current example is Cuba. Fact is that Cuba was driven into the arms of the soviet union, by the U.S. backed invasion, assassination attempt, sabotage and boycott.

My opinion is that Cuba would already be a moderate social state without this pressure by the U.S.

I believe in a free world. In a free world you can define democracy however you want, but the academic definition of democracy will prevail. In a free world you can distort facts as much as you want like you do here:

“Fact is that Iran’s current government is more democratic than under the shah. ”

The shah had ultimate power, not the people. The current supreme leader has ultimate power, not the people. But again, some people believe North Korea is more democratic than the US.

“Fact is that Iran preferred a democracy with religious leaders on top over the U.S. installed dictator.”
Again, you can have your own definition of democracy and you can distort facts. A religious leader who banned opposition parties and specifically and officially denounced democracy is not running a democracy according to the academic definition of democracy.

“My opinion….”

Yes, you are certainly allowed to have your opinion. And I am allowed to have my opinion as well. For instance, my opinion is Cuba can have its own free and fair elections, allow freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, regardless of what the US government thinks. Iran can have freedom of religion, expression, free and fair elections. It can reduce its human rights abuses regardless of what the US government does. Those decisions a sovereign state make have nothing to do with the US. In my opinion it is completely nonsense to believe that Iran will stop its massive executions, political repressions when the US tells it to stop supporting Hezbollah or to forget about nuclear weapons. Most dictators around the world have never had nuclear weapons and many committed genocides regardless of what the US did or did not do.

I just threw my initial response away, because I think the real issue is that you are disingenuous. That is just an opinion. I already know that I am allowed to have that opinion. Have a nice day and don’t let it bother you (even though you have the right to let it bother you).